Today, ABC News finally reported the blindingly obvious fact that Sen. Dianne Feinsteins beloved assault weapons ban  a piece of legislation now favored by President Obama  would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shootings. Heres what they said:

Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?

It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy. Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.

Additionally, the language in the law was loose enough that a gun enthusiast who was interested in adding a type of AR-15 to their collection could have purchased one legally.

In fact, ABC News even admitted that the assault weapons ban passed by Congress in 1994 didnt work in the first place:

Once people get over Barry and his ‘RATS KNEEJERK REACTION and start using their heads, they’ll understand that “gun control” won’t do anything to stop these kinds of murders. We’ve got to deal with the monsters that the ‘RAT society has been creating since the 60s. If people REALLY want to blame someone other than the murderer, Adam Lanza, I suggest they try to be honest with themselves for once and point their crooked little fingers at the one in the mirror.

4
posted on 12/19/2012 3:51:31 PM PST
by FlingWingFlyer
(Gun control is not about laws. It's about confiscation.)

No firearms ban could have stopped it. Do you really think someone prepared to commit murder and suicide is going to give a rats backside about breaking another law? Or twenty, or one hundred? All these laws do is create groups of defenseless potential victims. It it’s doubtful there is any reasonable passive defense that could have prevented it. The best chance you have for ending an event like this with minimal loss of life is a trained active, rapid response. That means people with firearms in our schools people. Preferably several each.

First, there are already more than 20,000 gun control laws actively on the books today and none of them prevented this tragedy. Second, millions upon million of people in America own guns and 99.9999% of them have never and will never do anything like this. But, the left would rather punish 100% of gun owners rather than 0.0001% of mentally disturbed people who might have access to guns!

So, lets lose the hysteria and analyze the facts - a PERSON did this, NOT a hunk of steel. In Portland, a PERSON killed two people in the mall, NOT a hunk of steel! In Denver, a PERSON shot up the theater, NOT a hunk of steel!!

NONE of these facts will matter to the gun-grabbing nanny-staters, because they focus solely on the gun and nothing else. So, what happens if ALL guns are outlawed and forcibly collected by the feds? Someone bent on committing mass murder may turn to knives, hatchets, chainsaws or machetes. So, we outlaw those. The next person to commit a heinous crime may use a bat, poison, poison gas or a semi-tractor. And the one after that may use a car, a pen or pencil, a rock, his hands . . . . . . so when do we blame the PERSON and NOT the inanimate weapon!???

The fact remains that until the left understands that murdering humans by ANY means including their favorite method, abortion, human life will be valueless and more copycats will come out to exercise their demented mass murder of innocent people.

All of that said, it occurs to me that the gun-grabbers are from the leftist school of complete control. What that means is that if 1 person commits a gun crime then, under the leftist theory of the “collective” and “groupthink”, they believe that ALL gun owners will commit mass murder unless they eliminate guns (good luck with that!). So, the calls for more gun control by the left after these incidents is twofold - eliminate the “balance of power” the Founding Fathers so carefully wove into the Constitution and gain total control over the people.

Another part that affects all of this is the fact that laws, whether gun laws, robbery laws, or whatever, are written solely to affect law-abiding citizens. People who commit crimes are called “outlaws” and criminals because they DON’T adhere to the laws created to control or stop their illegal activities.

So, should the left create additional gun control laws, will it prevent the next gun-related crime? Of course not. Laws only affect those of us who obey them. Those who disregard the law won’t be stopped from committing whatever crime they want to commit.

As a final note, Adam Lanza did not own the guns he used to murder all of the people at Sandy Hook Elementary. They were his mother’s guns and they were all legally purchased and registered. Which begs the question, what will any NEW gun control laws accomplish?

23
posted on 12/19/2012 4:38:23 PM PST
by DustyMoment
(Congress - another name for anti-American criminals!!)

Go further. Get off defense & go on offense. Connecticut has strict gun control laws. So what happened? Why didn’t the liberals’ solution work in stopping this horrific crime? Get them to defend their ‘wonderful’ solution and explain why it failed. The CT shooting is a great opportunity and a teachable moment.

I presume the implication was that the previous 'Assault Gun' bans were too loose - and, by golly, the next ban should ban everything over spit gun caliber...I don't watch ABC, but I presume they must have been pitching some such drift...

I suspect this report was made for the purpose of justifying an even more draconian ban next time around.

That's the way I read it too. There was a drop in crime during that period, but none of it can be attributed to the AWB. But maybe if the law were more restrictive, it might work better than it didn't work the first time. Some kind of weird liberal logic, I guess.

The L.A. Times said the 1994 law, as written, would likely not have prevented the CT shooting. What they are, in fact, saying is that the 1994 law was NOT STRONG ENOUGH! They want a new bill that is stronger and more restrictive than the 1994 bill!

37
posted on 12/19/2012 5:23:42 PM PST
by ought-six
( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)

Criminals, by definition, do not obey laws. He might, however, pay heed to the laws of probability.In a gun-free zone, a shooter would know that he would be the only one with a gun there. In an area where guns are allowed, he cannot be so certain.

39
posted on 12/19/2012 5:26:47 PM PST
by jmcenanly
("The more corrupt the state, the more laws." Tacitus, Publius Cornelius)

... also the key thing our side must do is slow down the process. Obama wants to seize the hysteria and momentum and ram something through. Slow it down to take months or maybe years and let them talk themselves to death and burn out.

I was under the impression that the Bushmaster was in the trunk of the shooters car, now it is the weapon used. Does anyone know when they changed the story? Was it the actual weapon used or has it become the weapon to justify the ban on assault guns?

Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.

So far I've seen nothing confirming that the Bushmaster was even carried into the school, it's variously been "in the trunk of his car", "also taken", or similar; did I miss something critical to this debate?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.